Just want to go on the record and say “no hate”. You’re all clearly thoughtful individuals who take matters into deep consideration which I respect. I know I can be flippant sometimes.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
…I am the only person in this forum for the moment openly defending this God.
[/quote]
Hey Lone Ranger, be careful with your chest thumping, you might break a rib.
You spent many an hour passively sitting on the bench by your own choice in the creation/evolution threads, my friend. In fact, I never saw you show up once even for the coin toss.
For the most part I was the only running back that ever touched the ball.
[/quote]You and I do not worship the same God. You are the most reprehensible specimen of God hating blasphemous pagan idolater I have ever personally encountered. Every atheistic God denying rank heathen on this site combined does not even begin to bring the reproach and dishonor on the holy name of the spotless lamb of God like you do. As things stand now Elder Forlife will have it much easier at the judgment seat of Christ. Pick somebody else for your Satanic team.
[/quote]
… Wait, what sort of Christian are you exactly?
@pat,
Let’s see if I can chop this down.
I only have my assumptions. My primary assumption is that my experience is real, and I throw my best guesses at my experience. I’m also aware that I don’t have enough info to make perfect guesses.
So my epistemology stems from my experience being true. Raw unlabeled sensory information. If I’m actually in a padded cell so be it.
Knowledge is the misnomer for the layer that sits on top of this. If I use the word “know” it’s a bad habit… cause I’d be kidding myself.
In my experience there are patterns. Some seem more regular and fundamental than others. I bet on the odds. Sometimes I’m wrong.
That makes me sad.
But I get over it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
There’s your team member Push. Wadda shock. Carry on. You make a perfect couple.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< So, if I’m understanding you, you claim God exists because we can hold concepts in our minds and that is only possible if a God set the parameters for cognition, amiright? >>>[/quote]Please define cognition as you’re using it.
Tentatively I’ll say that we can hold concepts in our mind with certainty only because the one true and living God who exists as an eternal tri-unity, has designed not only us generally, but also the logical framework we are inextricably pickled in AND every single object of knowledge every single man will ever encounter.
It’s not “God exists because…”. It’s “everything else exists because God…”.
Universal comprehensive knowledge of universally and comprehensively EVERYTHING is required for the acquisition of even the first particle of knowledge of anything. You will concede that before we’re through here. If there is even one grain of knowledge that is unknown it carries the potential to alter everything else we know. I by faith access the mind of the only God even proposed in all the world’s religions who has such knowledge. Even other views of the Christian God deny Him this knowledge. (though they’ll attempt to deny that)
You still haven’t told me HOW you KNOW anything. I went down this exact path most recently with Elder Forlife. There’s his footprints over there. What is the very first utterly foundational presuppositional framework YOU assume by faith that governs and dictates every other thought you think? You have one. Everybody does. And everybody’s is ultimately the same. Except Christians. Actually insofar as unbelievers are accurate about anything at all they are exercising the sin marred image of God remaining in them.
BTW. I’m not trying to “prove” anything to you in the traditional sense. That would be impossible. I’m simply testifying to you why I believe I have the right and reason to believe that 2+2=4.
BTW again. There are people who disagree with me with regard to what we are presently talking about who I consider strong brothers and sisters in the Lord.
[/quote]
By “cognition” I’m talking about mental process (attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions).
I “know things” because I have a brain that can do the things listed above.
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
@pat,
Let’s see if I can chop this down.
I only have my assumptions. My primary assumption is that my experience is real, and I throw my best guesses at my experience. I’m also aware that I don’t have enough info to make perfect guesses.
So my epistemology stems from my experience being true. Raw unlabeled sensory information. If I’m actually in a padded cell so be it.
Knowledge is the misnomer for the layer that sits on top of this. If I use the word “know” it’s a bad habit… cause I’d be kidding myself.
In my experience there are patterns. Some seem more regular and fundamental than others. I bet on the odds. Sometimes I’m wrong.
That makes me sad.
But I get over it.[/quote]
Or you can simply say that you get by on faith and good luck. So do I.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< … Wait, what sort of Christian are you exactly?[/quote]There’s only one “sort of Christian”. I would have gone unnoticed and been considered boring and average in the American colonies. In the rotting spiritual corpse of the 21st century United States I’m an intolerant anachronistic self righteous antique. Even in the “church”. ESPECIALLY in the church. “Church” being used here to refer to the universal community claiming to be Christian. [quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< By “cognition” I’m talking about mental process (attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions). I “know things” because I have a brain that can do the things listed above. [/quote]You’ve never thought about this before by which I intend no insult. Even as a disciple of Christ I went quite a while before doing so myself even though It’s all over the bible.
You keep reporting to me the results of your ultimate all governing framework for knowledge, not the framework itself. You keep telling me the bicycle is fixed. I’m asking what tools you used to fix it. I happen to know it’s the same set that every other unbeliever is using.
HOW do you understand and solve problems? Using what tools do you turn the nuts and screws on a given “problem” in the confident hope of reaching a conclusion certain enough to settle on? This is not a trick question. It’s just one very few ever ask themselves. I’ll rephrase. How do you know that 2+2 does NOT equal 5. Or any other sum?
I suppose you could say the difference is that I place my assumptions or faith in the things that I perceive while believers locate their faith on something which is imperceptible.
I build my mental world from the inside out, and they build it from the outside in, starting at the conclusion and working backwards.
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:<<< I build my mental world from the inside out, and they build it from the outside in, starting at the conclusion and working backwards.[/quote]It’s killin me that I don’t have time to answer this. Jist killin me. You are at once so right and so wrong.
[quote]Gumpshmee wrote:
@pat
I suppose you could say the difference is that I place my assumptions or faith in the things that I perceive while believers locate their faith on something which is imperceptible.
I build my mental world from the inside out, and they build it from the outside in, starting at the conclusion and working backwards.[/quote]
No you don’t. Think about it.
And God is not ‘imperceptible’, if we couldn’t perceive at we wouldn’t be having this conversation at all.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
In the rotting spiritual corpse of the 21st century United States I’m an intolerant anachronistic self righteous antique.
[/quote]
Actually, you’re just arrogant, self absorbed fool living a fools lie. It’s not that complicated really. You would have been equally arrogant, foolish ans self absorbed in the 20th, 19th, and 18th century. What it’s not, is true Christianity.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< … Wait, what sort of Christian are you exactly?[/quote]There’s only one “sort of Christian”. I would have gone unnoticed and been considered boring and average in the American colonies. In the rotting spiritual corpse of the 21st century United States I’m an intolerant anachronistic self righteous antique. Even in the “church”. ESPECIALLY in the church. “Church” being used here to refer to the universal community claiming to be Christian. [quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< By “cognition” I’m talking about mental process (attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions). I “know things” because I have a brain that can do the things listed above. [/quote]You’ve never thought about this before by which I intend no insult. Even as a disciple of Christ I went quite a while before doing so myself even though It’s all over the bible.
You keep reporting to me the results of your ultimate all governing framework for knowledge, not the framework itself. You keep telling me the bicycle is fixed. I’m asking what tools you used to fix it. I happen to know it’s the same set that every other unbeliever is using.
HOW do you understand and solve problems? Using what tools do you turn the nuts and screws on a given “problem” in the confident hope of reaching a conclusion certain enough to settle on? This is not a trick question. It’s just one very few ever ask themselves. I’ll rephrase. How do you know that 2+2 does NOT equal 5. Or any other sum?
[/quote]
… not gunna lie, I really don’t know what you’re asking me any more.
What tools do I use to solve problems? My brain isn’t an adequate answer? What exactly are you using?
I know 2^2 doesn’t equal 5 because I can conceive of 2 groups of 2 and count them. And I count to 4 when I finish. It does not equal 5 because I can see it equals 4.
How can I conceive of these numbers? My brain. These numbers aren’t objective truths, they’re just a means to organize our thoughts and enable us to convey meanings to each other.
[quote]TigerTime wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< … Wait, what sort of Christian are you exactly?[/quote]There’s only one “sort of Christian”. I would have gone unnoticed and been considered boring and average in the American colonies. In the rotting spiritual corpse of the 21st century United States I’m an intolerant anachronistic self righteous antique. Even in the “church”. ESPECIALLY in the church. “Church” being used here to refer to the universal community claiming to be Christian. [quote]TigerTime wrote:<<< By “cognition” I’m talking about mental process (attention, remembering, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions). I “know things” because I have a brain that can do the things listed above. [/quote]You’ve never thought about this before by which I intend no insult. Even as a disciple of Christ I went quite a while before doing so myself even though It’s all over the bible.
You keep reporting to me the results of your ultimate all governing framework for knowledge, not the framework itself. You keep telling me the bicycle is fixed. I’m asking what tools you used to fix it. I happen to know it’s the same set that every other unbeliever is using.
HOW do you understand and solve problems? Using what tools do you turn the nuts and screws on a given “problem” in the confident hope of reaching a conclusion certain enough to settle on? This is not a trick question. It’s just one very few ever ask themselves. I’ll rephrase. How do you know that 2+2 does NOT equal 5. Or any other sum?
[/quote]
… not gunna lie, I really don’t know what you’re asking me any more.
What tools do I use to solve problems? My brain isn’t an adequate answer? What exactly are you using?
I know 2^2 doesn’t equal 5 because I can conceive of 2 groups of 2 and count them. And I count to 4 when I finish. It does not equal 5 because I can see it equals 4.
How can I conceive of these numbers? My brain. These numbers aren’t objective truths, they’re just a means to organize our thoughts and enable us to convey meanings to each other.[/quote]What I’m asking you is by what criteria does counting return a reliable result? I absolutely promise I am NOT playing games with you. I also do not think you’re a bonehead for not having grabbed hold of where I’m going yet. People, even very sharp ones, rarely think in these terms yet this realm is THE key to all knowledge. ALL knowledge whatsoever at it’s very foundation.
All of us make unprovable assumptions.
Tiribulus makes one mighty assumption, that his god is a real being, and all of his beliefs flow from this seminal assumption.
Pat claims that his beliefs derive from logic, but even if that were indisputably true, logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions (like the assumption of non-contradiction).
It is inescapable. Because our assumptions are unprovable, perfect knowledge and certitude are unattainable.
We can choose to acknowledge our ignorance, or we can ignore it. But at the end of the day, we are infants crawling through a vast, dark universe, and no claims to the contrary will change that.
Of course, everything I wrote above could also be wrong 
[quote]forlife wrote:
All of us make unprovable assumptions.
Tiribulus makes one mighty assumption, that his god is a real being, and all of his beliefs flow from this seminal assumption.
Pat claims that his beliefs derive from logic, but even if that were indisputably true, logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions (like the assumption of non-contradiction).
[/quote]
I don’t claim my beliefs are derived from logic. My beliefs are backed up by logic…Damn good irrefutable logic. Technically, you cannot derive ‘beliefs’ from deductive logic. Second, my beliefs are derived by faith. Deduction can only take you so far, but it allows you to make safer assumptions when a foolproof deductive conclusion serves as a backing to a belief system.
Like I said before, I can only infer God from cosmology. Even if it serves that no other conclusion could be drawn, it’s still an inference, because of where I start.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
All of us make unprovable assumptions.
Tiribulus makes one mighty assumption, that his god is a real being, and all of his beliefs flow from this seminal assumption.
Pat claims that his beliefs derive from logic, but even if that were indisputably true, logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions (like the assumption of non-contradiction).
[/quote]
I don’t claim my beliefs are derived from logic. My beliefs are backed up by logic…Damn good irrefutable logic. Technically, you cannot derive ‘beliefs’ from deductive logic. Second, my beliefs are derived by faith. Deduction can only take you so far, but it allows you to make safer assumptions when a foolproof deductive conclusion serves as a backing to a belief system.
Like I said before, I can only infer God from cosmology. Even if it serves that no other conclusion could be drawn, it’s still an inference, because of where I start.[/quote]
My point was that there’s no such thing as irrefutable, foolproof logic, since logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions. Epistemologically, a sound argument may exist, but we can never know it as such, since the ultimate truth of its premises and the inevitability of its conclusions are unknowable.
I wasn’t referring just to the unknowability of god, which as you point out can only be inferred. I was referring to the unknowability of the conclusions of any logical argument, including the cosmological argument.
[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that there’s no such thing as irrefutable, foolproof logic, since logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions.
[/quote]
Yes there is, and no it’s not.
The rest I am fine with, but taking logic itself to task is as a futile endeavour. There are no assumptions in deductive logic, there is only right or wrong, true or false.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that there’s no such thing as irrefutable, foolproof logic, since logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions.
[/quote]
Yes there is, and no it’s not.
The rest I am fine with, but taking logic itself to task is as a futile endeavour. There are no assumptions in deductive logic, there is only right or wrong, true or false.[/quote]
Logic is only true to the extent that the assumptions of noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It is impossible to know these assumptions are actually true (see dialetheism). Logical paradoxes do exist (see the Liar’s paradox and Russell’s paradox), hence there is reason to believe these underlying assumptions do not universally apply.
[quote]forlife wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]forlife wrote:
My point was that there’s no such thing as irrefutable, foolproof logic, since logic itself is based on unprovable assumptions.
[/quote]
Yes there is, and no it’s not.
The rest I am fine with, but taking logic itself to task is as a futile endeavour. There are no assumptions in deductive logic, there is only right or wrong, true or false.[/quote]
Logic is only true to the extent that the assumptions of noncontradiction, excluded middle, and identity are true. It is impossible to know these assumptions are actually true (see dialetheism). Logical paradoxes do exist (see the Liar’s paradox and Russell’s paradox), hence there is reason to believe these underlying assumptions do not universally apply.[/quote]
You are over complicating it. A deductive argument is simply an argument form where the conclusion follows directly from it’s conclusions. Non-contraction and excluded middle deal with the unknowns, not the know elements of an argument. Because A doesn’t necessarily preclude B.
If an argument states that the train isn’t coming here, it doesn’t mean it’s stopped.
Statement, or thought paradoxes aren’t a problem unless you system is completely isolated. Even the notion that a statement can be both true and false doesn’t mean that they are both true and false under the same circumstances. Circumstance or context resolves the thought paradoxes and logic doesn’t exist in an isolated vacuum.
those are not assumptions, but principles.
basic rules. and these basic rules are part of our mental “hardware”.
btw, in itself, logic has nothing to do with true and false, simply because logic doesn’t say anything about the world.
Logic is not factual, but formal.
Logic doesn’t tell us what is true or false, but what is valid and invalid, what’s meaningful and what’s meaningless.
If, for some reason, the underlying principles of logic are not “true”, then meaning itself is an illusion.
but this is a pointless speculation. with ZERO practical consequence.
If it is an illusion, it’s an illusion that can not be corrected nor avoided
We could not even begin to imagine what stand in its place “in reality”. (at least not without using logic)
So, If it’s an illusion, this illusion is still the only reality we got. And we have to live with it.
[quote]kamui wrote:
those are not assumptions, but principles.
basic rules. and these basic rules are part of our mental “hardware”.
btw, in itself, logic has nothing to do with true and false, simply because logic doesn’t say anything about the world.
Logic is not factual, but formal.
Logic doesn’t tell us what is true or false, but what is valid and invalid, what’s meaningful and what’s meaningless.
If, for some reason, the underlying principles of logic are not “true”, then meaning itself is an illusion.
but this is a pointless speculation. with ZERO practical consequence.
If it is an illusion, it’s an illusion that can not be corrected nor avoided
We could not even begin to imagine what stand in its place “in reality”. (at least not without using logic)
So, If it’s an illusion, this illusion is still the only reality we got. And we have to live with it.
[/quote]
It would posit that everything is illusory, and therefore nothing could be determined.
“btw, in itself, logic has nothing to do with true and false, simply because logic doesn’t say anything about the world.
Logic is not factual, but formal.”
Yup. It’s a process or method.